Wreckers of heritage building under fire at last: Hume

The city might actually punish the demolishers of a building on Queen St. E., and that's a welcome change.

A heritage building at 267 Queen St. E. was protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. It was demolished earlier this year. The owner and the contractor who knocked it down have been served with a summons that could see them fined $1 million and spend a year behind bars.

While all eyes were focused on the Ford Farce last Friday, the city quietly lobbed a bombshell that could change the face of Toronto. The owner of a heritage building at 267 Queen St. E. and the contractor who demolished it earlier this year have been served with a summons that could see them fined $1 million and spend a year behind bars.

That’s a long way from happening, of course, but the mere fact the city building division has taken such a step is hugely significant; it means that this sort of casual vandalism will no longer be tolerated. Historically, such acts have gone largely unpunished.

There have been exceptions, but in many cases owners of designated heritage sites have felt free to tear them down at will. And all too often, the city has been party to their mutilation, allowing buildings to be destroyed except for a facade or two. There’s even a name for it: “facadomy.”

But now the city is signalling that enough is enough. The wanton destruction of the three-storey brick storefront dating from the 1880s is not just a painful loss to the city, it was a display of civic contempt. It also happens to be illegal.

Designated in 1989, the Queen St. building — actually two buildings, 267 and 269 — was protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. Perhaps because they knew this, the owner didn’t even bother to apply for a demolition permit.

“It’s a pretty significant move,” says Rollo Myers of the Ontario Heritage Trust. “It’s always been something that can be done, but I don’t recall this happening before.”

Indeed, since the Heritage Act was passed in 1975, only five heritage property owners have been successfully prosecuted by municipalities for illegal demolitions. During the same time, 52 designated buildings have been torn down with municipal approval.

Today, developers tend to be more sensitive than ever to the importance of heritage. Though they complain about the extra expense of restoration and incorporation, their projects are generally better as a result.

As one heritage official put it, “Not very often do you get someone who’s so foolish. Increasingly, people get it.”

In Toronto, where the skyline changes week to week, the 19th-century city has never mattered more. The destroyed buildings sat in the heart of old downtown, though not fancy they exemplified the quiet and efficient urbanity of the late 1800s. Simple but dignified, almost elegant, these structures still haven’t been surpassed in their understanding of how buildings should work in a city and what they need to bring to the street.

As Myers points out, some developers view fines as the cost of doing business. There’s so much money to be made, it’s worth the price. This time, however, there’s the explicit threat of jail, not something associated with this sort of crime.

Though many Torontonians would cheer such a verdict, a better resolution perhaps would be for the court to order the owner to rebuild his properties. It’s happened before, but rarely. Still, there’s something appropriate, even poetic, about the idea of demanding the buildings be replaced, brick by brick, pilaster by pilaster, window by window, Renaissance Revival detail by Renaissance Revival detail.

The remade structure could never match the original, but the process, which would surely cost at least $1 million and be as painful as a year in prison, would be instructive for all involved. Not only would the site be restored, so would the rule of law. Most important, the sentence would remind landlords that when they own a designated building, they also own its past.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.